Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 38919

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

NC: 2025:KHC:40354

RFA No. 1062 of 2006

DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

BETWEEN:

B ALLABAKASH

SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs

1(a) SMT.KULSUM BEE

WIFE OF LATE B.ALLABAKASH

SINCE DEAD BY HER LRs

APPELLANTS Nos.1(b) to 1(g)

1(b) SMT.KURSHEED, WIFE OF P.PYAREKHAN

DAUGHTER OF LATE B.ALLABAKASH

AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

1(c) SMT.MALLIKA, WIFE OF HABIBKHAN

DAUGHTER OF LATE B.ALLABAKASH

AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

1(d) SRI B.AMEER

SON OF LATE B.ALLABAKASH

AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

1(e) SMT.PARVEEN

WIFE OF B.IQBAL PASHA

DAUGHTER OF LATE B.ALLABAKASH

AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

1(f) SMT.SHAHEENA, WIFE OF HUSSAIN

DAUGHTER OF LATE B.ALLABAKASH

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

1(g) SRI B.DADAPEER

SON OF LATE B.ALLABAKASH

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

ALL ARE RESIDING AT No.3-6-18C

JVS STREET, HINDUPUR-515 201

ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT

ANDHRA PRADESH.

...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI G S VENKATA SUBBA RAO, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI NAWAB

S/O RASULLBEIG

AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

PLASTIC MERCHANT

NEAR MASJID ROAD, VI CROSS,

GANGONDANAHALLI

BANGALORE 560 019

...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI SWAROOP.T FOR SRI M.C.RAVIKUMAR, ADVOCATES)

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI G S VENKATA SUBBA RAO
For the Respondents: SRI SWAROOP.T FOR SRI M.C.RAVIKUMAR

Ownership claims supported by documented titles must be upheld against trespass, regardless of boundary disputes.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 96 - Property dispute - Appellant claimed ownership via registered sale deed dated 25.09.1979. Respondent denied ownership claiming a brother in possession. Court identified trespass by the respondent. Court held plaintiff’s title remained unchallenged despite variances in boundaries. (Paras 24, 34, 45)

(B) Legal Freehold Ownership - The court recognized that an owner could be deprived of possession through unlawful means, legitimizing the need for legal intervention. (Paras 35, 46)

Facts of the case:
The appellant claimed ownership over property, purchased from a preceding owner, while the respondent alleged possession through their brother. The trial court dismissed the suit for lack of revenue records.

Findings of Court:
The trial court erred in dismissing the suit without considering the appellant's ownership and documented evidence.

Issues: The principal issues were whether the appellant established ownership, and if the respondent's possession was valid.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found title supported by documentation and recognized unlawful possession necessitates a decree in favor of the true owner.

Result: Appeal allowed.

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.01.2006 PASSED IN O.S.No.5116/1995, ON THE FILE OF THE XIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH.NO.28), DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND POSSESSION.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard Sri G.S. Venkata Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Swaroop T., appearing for Sri M.C. Ravikumar, learned counsel for respondent.

2. Unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant, challenging the dismissal of his suit in O.S.No.516/1995.

3. Facts of the case for the disposal of the present appeal in brief or as under:

A suit for declaration and possession came to be filed in respect of the following property by the plaintiff, hereinafter referred to as suit property:

“All that piece and parcel of the immoveable property bearing Khaneshumari No.G-60, measuring 40x30 feet, situated at VIth Cross, Masjid Road, Gangondanahalli, Yeshwanthapur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore, bounded on the East by : Road, West by : Property No.G-61, North by:Road, South by:Property No.G-59.”

4. Plaintiff contended that he is the owner of the suit property, having purchased it from Lakshmamma, wife of Venkatachala, through a registered sale deed dated 25.09.1979. It is contented that said Lakshamamma has purchased the suit property by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 16.09.1941 from her vendor Sri. B. Krishna Iyengar.

5. It is also contented by the plaintiff that plaintiff was working with M/s. Balaji Trading Company at Tharagupet till 1982 and thereafter he shifted his family to Hindupur in State of Andhra Pradesh and carrying on the business of dealer in Husk at Hindupur and used to visit the suit property often.

6. In the month of March 1993, when he visited the suit property, he noticed that the defendant had trespassed into the property and was in the process of construction of a house and the same was objected to.

7. It is the case of the plaintiff that after purchase he could not immediately construct the property in the suit land and defendants without there being any right, title or interest, started interfering with the suit property. When the same was objected by the plaintiff, defendant along with his relatives and followers trespassed into the suit property and forcibly constructed a house which necessitated the plaintiff to file a suit for declaration and possession.

8. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendant appeared through his Advocate and filed written statement.

9. In the written statement, he contended that he is not a necessary party to the suit and it is Rafiq Beig who purchased the property bearing No.787, situated at Gangondanahalli Village, from one Sakamma, wife of Huchappa under the sale deed dated 16.08.1990. Said Rafiq is in possession of the suit property and it is Rafiq who has constructed the house investing the huge money. Therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit.

10. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, learned trial Judge raised following issues:

“1. Does plaintiff prove that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property?

2. Does he further prove that defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property?

3. Whether the defendant is a necessary party to the suit?

4. Is plaintiff entitled to the relief of declaration and possession?

5. What relief ?”

11. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.1 and placed on record eight documents which are exhibited and marked as Ex.P1 to P8, comprising of copy of the notice, endorsement, encumbrance certificate, notice received from Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, certified copy of the sale deed in respect of suit property, copy of the legal notice issued to defendant, certified copy of the sale deed of the vendor of the plaintiff.

12. As against the evidence placed on record by the p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document